Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
आदेश / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai dated 30.07.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made in respect of stamp duty charges and registration charges amounting to ₹.10,78,220/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. As per AST data evidenced that the assessee had transacted in an immovable property for a value of
:- 2 -: ITA No.2607/Chny/19
₹.1,43,10,000/- during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. Since the assessee has not offered the long term capital gains for taxation, with the belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of the section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment 2010-11 admitting total income at ₹.47,66,025/-. From the material available on record and submissions made by the assessee during the scrutiny proceedings against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer found that the full value of consideration for the transfer of the property was ₹.1,43,10,000/- and the assessee, after deducting the expenses in connection with sale of ₹.10,78,220/-, calculated the net sale consideration mounting to ₹.1,32,31,780/- by admitting capital gain income of ₹.53,35,818/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee towards registration expenses, the Assessing Officer determined the long term capital gain income at ₹.60,34,245/- after disallowing the expense of ₹.10,78,220/- towards registration charge claimed to have incurred by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that major portion of the stamp duty and registration fee amounting to ₹.10,78,220/- in connection with the transfer were paid by the assessee and thus, claimed as expenses in connection with
:- 3 -: ITA No.2607/Chny/19
the transfer. After the total sale consideration of ₹.1,43,10,000/-, the net sale consideration received by the assessee was only ₹.1,32,31,780/- as could be evidenced by bank statement. Confirmation letter from the buyer was produced before the authorities below in which the buyer has confirmed the fact that out of the total registration expenses of ₹.12,78,030/-, an amount of ₹.10,78,220/- were adjusted against the balance sale consideration due to the seller (the assessee) and thus prayed for deleting the addition. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee sold a house property with land and building on 19.03.2010 for a sale consideration of ₹.1,43,10,000/- as per the registered sale deed. However, by filing the bank statement, the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that she actually got the net sale consideration at ₹.1,32,31,780/- from the buyer since the buyer agreed to bear the registration expenses for ₹.10,78,220/- and claimed the same as a deduction related to the sale while computing long term capital gain, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
4.1 As per section 48 of the Act, the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of the transfer of capital asset should be considered after allowing deductions towards expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, cost of acquisition of asset and cost of any
:- 4 -: ITA No.2607/Chny/19
improvement thereto. Moreover, as per the regular market practice, the buyer has to hear the expenses related to registration and stamp duty and not the seller. On perusal of the registered sale deed executed on 19.03.2010, we find that the scheduled property was sold as per sale deed and the sale consideration of ₹.1,43,10,000/- was paid by the purchaser to the vendor (the assessee) in the following manner as given in the sale deed at page 5: (i) ₹.10,60,000/- paid by the purchaser to the vendor (the assessee) as advance by cheque No. 26999 dated 17.043.2010, dawn on CITI Bank, Chennai. (ii) The balance sale consideration of ₹.1,32,50,000/- paid by the purchaser to the vendor (the assessee) by Banker’s Cheque No. 837983 dated 19.03.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank, Anna Salai Branch, Chennai issued by M/s. HDFC Limited by way of Housing Loan granted to the purchaser herein on the schedule mentioned property at the time of registration of this sale deed. Totalling in all about ₹.1,43,10,000/-, the receipt of which the vendor (the assessee) doth hereby admits and acknowledges and acquits the purchaser of any further payment, transfers the said property more fully described in the Schedule hereunder together with all rights, title and interest of the vendor into and upon the said property together with all the rights, drains, ways, easements, fixtures, erections, trees, fences, water courses, amenities, benefits, liberties, etc. From the above, it is clear that the assessee (the vendor) was in receipt of total sale consideration of ₹.1,43,10,000/- by 19.03.2010 as on the date of execution of sale deed. Moreover, as could be evidenced from the sale deed, the sale deed document was purchased by Mrs. Saranya Srivatsan, Chennai [the purchaser] for ₹.11,34,800/- on 19.03.2010. Therefore, the claim of the assessee that she herself paid the amount for purchase of the stamp paper is only off the record in the absence of evidence. Further, we find that the confirmation letter alone filed in support of the claim of expenses stated to
:- 5 -: ITA No.2607/Chny/19
have incurred by the assessee was not supported by any evidence and thus, it has no evidentiary value since the consideration details furnished in the confirmation letter are contrary to the sale deed executed by the assessee. Thus, it is amply clear from the payment details given in the sale deed that there is no scope for claiming later that the buyer paid lesser sale consideration and the same was adjusted in registration charges claimed to have borne by the assessee in the absence of any cogent material substantiating the claim of the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance and thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 23rd December, 2019 in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAMIT KOCHAR) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Chennai, Dated, 23.12.2019 Vm/- आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT, 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.